board for WEPAN from 2012-2014. She earned her M.S. in Youth Development from the University of Nebraska and her B.S. in Family Studies at Kansas State University.Esther Gonzalez Esther Gonz´alez, MPA, MBA, ABD is a PhD Candidate at University of Southern California’s Price School of Public Policy with subject matter expertise in organization behavior and diversity management. Her research is multidisciplinary and applies methods and fields in public policy and management. She is a published author in several peer reviewed journals with media mentions in Forbes. Previously, she served as Director on the Research and Innovation team at the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE). She is a multifaceted
-Centered Designclass has been very rewarding for Dalrymple, especially after overcoming the initial discomfortin critiquing Whiteness as a Black immigrant. She especially enjoys having her experienceworking with communities valued in an engineering context.S. M. Lord is a White woman with over two decades of teaching experience. Her interest insocial justice stems from experiences of marginalization as a woman in Electrical Engineering inthe 1980s. During graduate school, she took several courses in Feminist Studies in response toher male peers constantly asking, “What do women think?” These courses gave her invaluableexperiences and some language and theoretical understanding of concepts such as privilege,sexism, racism, structural inequality and
exclusionary learning environments and curricula, lack of facultymentorship and role models, and lack of a supportive peer group (see [4]-[6] research findings onthese topics). For these reasons, there is a steep decline in the number of Black and Hispanicstudents graduating with a STEM degree from Baccalaureate institutions [7]. Classroom culture is shown to have a significant impact on the success of Black andHispanic students in higher education and in STEM in particular. Specifically, when Black andHispanic students feel like they have learning and supportive spaces to develop their STEMidentities, they are more likely than their peers who do not have access to such spaces toacademic persist in the STEM field [8]. However, Black and
active learning and peer-to-peerinteraction in the online environment. Expert talks feature faculty members from variousinstitutions and industry professionals discussing their research and industry related-work aroundspecific challenges within each theme and promote deeper understanding of the issues.Throughout the course, students also work on a project involving entrepreneurially-mindedlearning (EML). They identify an opportunity to create value related to one or more of the fourthemes; perform customer discovery and needs analysis; imagine and develop a futuristicsolution to address the needs; identify and research current technologies, which, when furtherdeveloped, could enable the development and implementation of their futuristic solution
andlabs were matched to align and maximize interests. Students also received formal collegeguidance and training in public speaking during the summer. The program ended with acolloquium, open to the university community and family members of students, whereparticipants gave short talks to present their work.The program includes two courses: Dimensions of Scientific Inquiry (DSI) and Basic Robotics toInspire Scientific Knowledge (BRISK). DSI, taught by a member of the NYU faculty, is adiscussion-based course that covers scientific methods and practice, including their social,cultural, political, and economic contexts; ethical questions surrounding science and technology;and writing, especially as it relates to college application materials and a
project, we examined the impact of micro-interventions aimedsolely at increasing the students’ sense of community in the early career course. These included,for example, a focus on classroom norms, strategies to increase peer-to-peer interactions, andpeer testimonials to enable discussions of the challenges faced by first-year engineering students,among others. For the third and final iteration of the project, we examined the impact ofinterventions aimed at both classroom community and relevancy.Based on the findings of this study and considering the context of the research plan, we have thefollowing concluding observations. There were important instructional differences seen betweenthe two courses as shown by the COPUS observational data
currently working on writing a book chapter for Algebraic and Combinatorial Computational Biology, an Elseiver publication. Additionally, Prof. Ghosh-Dastidar has extensive experience mentoring more than thirty students through different programs such as the NYC-AMP program, City Tech’s Emerging Scholar Program, and MAA NREUP grants.Dr. Diana Samaroo, NYC College of Technology and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York Diana Samaroo is an Associate Professor and Chair of Chemistry Department at NYC College of Technol- ogy, CUNY. Her pedagogical research is the area of peer led team learning in Chemistry and integrating STEM into curricula. With a background in biochemistry, her research interests are in the
mentioned during the interviews, “...they [thestudents] are going to be the messengers that carry the message of AMR forward to their peers,into their homes, to their parents.” The curriculum incorporated storytelling elements in the formof narrative-based educational videos, retellings of student experiences, and humanizingpathogens in story building (Figure 5).Figure 4. Examples of the curriculum's utilization of storytelling elements. (Left) Discussionslides use human-scaling for pathogens to create context, (Right) narrative-based storytelling instudent activities.Preparing the students to become the “messengers” to their communities required the ability toarticulate the concept of AMR orally. With the goal of fostering communication skills
involvesconfidence in taking on research challenges, learning new skills, and contributing to the project team.Finally, recognition by others plays a pivotal role in solidifying an engineering identity. It can be definedas “recognition (i.e., beliefs that they are seen as a good student in the subject by peers, parents, andteachers) as being the type of person that can do a particular subject” [17, p. 2]. In the context of thisstudy, recognition reflects both interpersonal validation from engineering peers and mentors as well aspersonal internalization of external recognition. Through others identifying their engineering talent andtechnical contributions, students begin to think of themselves as good engineers worthy of that field. Withengineering interest
grades over the course of the semester?Final grades for the course were determined through two individual assignments (20% of thefinal grade), and five team assignments (40% of the final grade), where every team memberreceives the same grade. The remaining 40% consisted of a combination of individual- and team-based grades: reflective journal, peer evaluation, mentor evaluation, and engineering graphics.Because assignments in engineering graphics contribute 20% to the final grade, and were gradedon a pass/fail basis, we compared student performance both with and without the graphics Page 26.1740.2grades.On an overall basis, we have not found a
purposefully avoidstreating minority gender identities as an afterthought13,25. The ability to select as many labels asappropriate prevents situations in which a respondent might have to choose between “Male” and“Transgender Male,” a situation that can be alienating. Our approach also balances length withinclusion13. In this configuration, a woman who identifies with her biological sex would be ableto select both “female” and “cisgender” to describe herself. If an individual’s gender identity didnot fall into the categories listed in the survey, they were prompted to write in their specificidentity next to “a gender not listed.” The phrasing of this item was crafted to treat write-inresponse as equally valid as the other options provided13.We defined
narratives.Author 1 invited Authors 3 and 4 to take part in the data collection process based on their sharedinterests. We then began writing individually. To write individually, we engaged in a “datageneration exercise” [12], which includes chronologically listing major events or experiences,the circumstances of these events as well as stating why these events are important. In terms ofcollaboration style, we adopted Partial concurrent collaboration, where researchers contribute todifferent stages in the process but do not fully engage from the beginning to the end.The concurrent model allowed us to write individually based on the overarching prompt and thenshare stories with the team. Sharing the stories with the group helped us add probing questions
engineering students who have made it beyond traditional exit points inengineering, and into upper division courses. This understanding will be developed throughaddressing the following research questions (RQ):RQ 1) What experiences, affective domain traits, and social capital resources explainengineering students’ development of engineering role identity and feelings of belongingness?RQ 2) In what ways are these experiences unique for first generation engineering students whencompared to continuing generation peers?This increased understanding will be further utilized by the research team in subsequentqualitative phases of the research project by exploring grounds for causation and thedevelopmental role of any significant factors play in development
the 2019 RAMP program, and how wepropose to continue this iterative process in the 2020 RAMP program. As we write this, RAMPin 2020 is expected to be fully online, a virtual program, as we shelter from the Covid-19 virus.Finally, we suggest why the PAR approach may be especially helpful for creating moresupportive and beneficial environments for women in engineering majors.In Section 2.0 RAMP student recruitment and demographics are discussed. The design andimplantation of PAR focus groups and online survey methods are presented in Section 3.0.Section 4.0 shows the results of data analysis and Section 5.0 summarizes the contributions andoutlines future work.2.0 RAMP Student Recruitment and DemographicsThe RAMP program is advertised to all
and the Commonwealth supports key initiatives in diversity, equity, and inclusion atall levels. [12]In contrast, there is low participation of women and low representation of URM in STEM and ahigh number of women in poverty in the region. Common STEM barriers include a lack ofmentors and role models; lack of awareness and understanding of STEM opportunities; and lackof academic preparation for STEM degree programs. Societal and cultural biases favor somecareers (nursing and teaching, for example) over others (e.g., engineering and science) forwomen, meaning fewer women pursue certain STEM fields. Those who do sometimes lackfamily and peer support.OriginsPVWIS was founded on the idea of access. The range of access for women in STEM isdependent
had complementary components that involved: (1) matching participants with facultyand other undergraduates (peer-mentoring) or graduate student researchers under the supervisionof the faculty for direct hands-on training in relevant computational and experimental researchmethods, (2) participation in research-oriented field trips (e.g., various labs on campus, Ad AstraRocket Co., near the Johnson Space Center of the National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration [NASA], etc.) (3) participation in professional-development seminars (GREpreparation, technical writing), and (4) presenting formal research papers at professionalconferences and submitting to refereed journals.The REU programs coordinated with the college’s own summer program and the
Technology (CWIT) at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. She is currently on sabbatical leave as a Visiting Professor in the College of Computing and Information Sciences at Northeastern University. She received a Ph.D in Computer Science from the University of North Car- olina, Chapel Hill and an AB in Computer Science from Harvard University. She established an interna- tionally recognized visualization research program supported by over $9,000,000 in external funding as PI or CoPI, including the NSF CAREER award. Dr. Rheingans has over eighty peer-reviewed publications, including the NIH/NSF Visualization Research Challenges report, published in 2006 by IEEE. Dr. Rhein- gans co-chaired the papers program for
]. Research shows that student interest in STEM field decreases as their grade levelsincrease [2]. It is expected that in the next five years, there will be a shortage of talented andskilled employees in STEM fields [1], [2].Among the reasons that U.S. students lack interest in STEM fields is their perception that formalK-12 STEM education is not directly relevant to their daily life experiences [3], [4]. Themathematical and scientific content presented in formal settings does not appear to be directlyuseful in their day-to-day experiences and their interactions with others in their community.Content knowledge is often presented in a way that seems compartmentalized and impractical [3]– [7]. Especially in their social interactions with peers, family
and analyzed at the time of this writing. By comparison, peers in theCollege of Engineering had first and second year retention rates of 50% and 38%, respectively, onaverage. Peers in other FIGs performed comparably to the FORCES cohorts. Overall, students inlearning communities were retained at higher rates than those who were not in learningcommunities. We note, however, that the results varied for each separate cohort, as did the levelof significance of the results. The FORCES retention rate was never significantly different fromthe other engineering FIG students. 70 61 59
facilitation of activities (before and while visiting K-12 students), writing skills used when preparing an outreach activity proposal (to includespecific instructions on how to adapt it to fit the needs of the community partners) and withwritten reflections of the experiences from the visits to the K-12 classrooms. The schedule of thecourse included four to six visits to the K-12 selected schools to nurture the development of atrusting learning environment. The EGR 299 S course was also a creative way to engage andimprove retention of CPP engineering students.E-Girl eventIn 2013, when funding was obtained to develop the “Hispanics in Engineering” program, the E-Girl event was created by two CPP female engineering students (Hadasa Reyes, a
students, who entered the Tickle College of Engineering as freshmen.A program which spans a five-year process--two years at the community college, a summerbridge program, and three years at University of Tennessee--is proposed. Activities includefaculty exchange between institutions, student skills seminars, sustained mentoring, intra-cohortpeer learning, and inter-cohort peer-teaching. The individual elements of the program as well asthe synergistic integration of elements have been chosen to balance two influences: (1) aprogram designed with theoretical influence from Tinto’s Theory of Voluntary StudentDeparture, and (2) a practical acknowledgment of demonstrated success at the University ofTennessee. This paper will provide a summary of the
Awards. Increase financial support for low-income students with academicability/talent or potential for engineering degree programs by offering an average of 24scholarships per year over a 6-year period to at least 36 unique students. Attention will be givento recruiting students from backgrounds that are underrepresented in engineering at theUniversity.II. Multi-Layered Mentoring. Support student’s academic success, matriculation, sense ofbelonging, persistence, and career aspirations with faculty mentors, peer mentors and industrymentors; coordinate with academic advising.III. Social and Academic Support. Foster cohort formation through collaborative design teamprojects for introductory engineering design courses, regular S-STEM activities
published by the National Science Foundation, How People Learn [1]effectively communicates the characteristics of an ideal learning environment as (a) knowledge-centered, (b) learner-centered, (c) assessment-centered, and (d) community-centered. “Briefly, alearner-centered approach attempts to expose students' prior conceptions and connect newlearning to them; a knowledge-centered approach promotes conceptual understanding andorganization of the knowledge; an assessment-centered approach gives frequent opportunities forformative feedback; and a community centered approach uses students' peers in the learning andalso attempts to connect students to the way professionals might work” [11]. Active learning,cooperative learning, peer-led team learning
Professor NegotiationsCase 1: Starting offer at a top-ten engineering research programDr. Taylor Smith, having completed a two-year international post-doctoral experience at a majorinternational laboratory – and having proved worth by already having several externally fundedgrants in addition to numerous peer-reviewed papers, applied for two top-ten engineeringprogram assistant professor positions. The candidate was selected for campus interviews at eachplace, and the interview experiences consisted of the typical two full days of interview, includingbreakfasts, lunches and dinners, with various combinations of faculty, graduate students and staff– rigorous interviews designed to vet future colleagues for their ability to take on the research
Nancy. At Rice, was awarded six campus-wide teach- ing awards, served as College Master for 10 years, served as founding Director of the Rice Center for Teaching Excellence, as founding Director of BrainSTEM (a weekly outreach program that pairs Uni- versity Neuroscience student mentors with High School Apprentices) and as founding Director of the Gulf Coast Consortium for Theoretical and Computational Neuroscience. Has published over 50 papers in peer-reviewed journals in Mathematics, Engineering and Science. Coauthored the text, Mathematics for Neuroscientists, with Fabrizio Gabbiani. Joined the Engineering Faculty at Northern New Mexico College in 2016, intent on recruiting, mentoring, teaching, challenging and
spatialability has been shown to be a predictor of student success in first-year engineering students [12].The students are also trained to develop metacognitive skills and work to develop growth mindsets,both of which have been linked to success in STEM courses [13–15]. Importantly, this seminar isalso serving as the launch point for peer and faculty mentoring.Engaged engineering projects: As part of this project, Scholars are invited to participate inEngaged Engineering projects which focus on enabling our Scholars to tackle real-world/authenticdesign challenges [16] with the goals of improving sense of belonging [17, 18], and gainingengineering skills that are required for upper level capstone senior projects, and, more broadly, theworkplace [19]. We
discipline), and anarticle published in 2013 or later. The sources consulted to find the peer review articles for thismapping review were the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) PEER DocumentRepository and the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). In the remaining of thisarticle, we will refer to students with physical and sensory disabilities as students withdisabilities.Among the exclusion criteria, we chose to exclude studies that focused on students’ experiencesin online education, settings and accessibility in online or learning systems. K-12 and graduateeducation-focused students were also excluded for this review. Studies that focused on theperceptions and experiences of engineering educators, instructors or teachers
,these processes are determined by external processes, i.e. environmental and behavioralinfluences, such as the learning climate (the environmental factors), and encouragementfrom a teacher or peer and positive outcomes from previous learning (the socialconversion factors); and third these three processes are reciprocal. Reciprocality does notequal symmetrical or bidirectional influences. Rather, it stresses: (1) one can use personalprocesses to ‘strategically regulate behavior and the immediate learning environment’,where the feedback can in turn influence the person’s covert process[14]; (2) theinfluences of externally social experiences and environments are important to internallypersonal processes[15]; and (3) ‘Behavior is, therefore, a
collaboration and communitybuilding around an issue among researchers who are also participants [13]. As Ellis, Adams, andBochner [14] describe, community autoethnography enables researchers to study “the personalexperience of researchers-in-collaboration to illustrate how a community manifests particularsocial/cultural issues” (p. 279). In our case, the issues that emerged in our writings anddiscussions centered on the challenges of the gender gap, underrepresented minority status,international identities, and first generation students.The data was generative, embracing the researcher's subjectivity in the spirit of autoethnography.The data emerged from the dynamic communication as we discussed the class readings, relatedentries in our journals, and
ideation was twofold: deter procrastination and encouragecomfort in writing and drawing in front of each other. These methods also encouraged mini-critiques as a way of further exploring each other’s ideas.The first was a simple brainstorm of potential areas of problem solving for their centraldesign question. Each team sat around a table covered on one large sheet of newsprint paper.The students were given 10 minutes to write out key words and thoughts. After 10 minutes,they moved clockwise to review, critique, and expand on the ideas written by their teammate. The process was repeated until all original thoughts had been thoroughly expandedupon. These was presented to the students as the catalyst for designing their solutions.Before they could